Call by binding [was Re: [Tutor] beginning to code]

[Chris Angelico]

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Antoon Pardon
<antoon.pardon at rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:
> On 25-09-17 20:01, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:54 AM, Antoon Pardon
>> <antoon.pardon at rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:
>>> On 25-09-17 19:31, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>>> If by "identity" you mean the integer values returned by id(), then
>>>> nope, you're still wrong - there is no mapping from identities to
>>>> values. There is a mapping from name to object/value, and from an
>>>> object, you can determine its identity. If you like, there's a mapping
>>>> from values to identities, but not the other way around.
>>>
>>> I'm describing this at a conceptual level.
>>
>> At what conceptual level are the identities an in-between state
>> instead of being something you see from the object?
>>
>>>> Unless, of course, you can find something in the Python documentation
>>>> that supports this two-step indirection?
>>>
>>> The fact that the Python documentation describes its sematics differently
>>> doesn't contradict that this is a useful model.
>>
>> You need *some* support for your assertion that there are pointers,
>> and you have absolutely none.
>
> I think you have me confused with Marko Rauhamaa. He makes an assertion
> about pointers. I don't.

My bad. It sounded like you were agreeing with Marko, and arguing the
same assertion.

ChrisA